New 8K OLED Displays for Tablets and Laptops: 8.3 and 13.3 Inches
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, a technology developer from Japan, has developed the industry's first 8.3 and 13.3-inch OLED displays featuring an 8K resolution. The monitors use crystalline oxide semiconductor technology and they are likely preliminary designs for future product commercialization. The company also recently showcased a bendable 8.6-inch OLED panel, potentially for a foldable tablet or smartphone.
Both of SEL's OLED panels featuring a 7680×4320 resolution use a color filter that relies on CAAC-IGZO (c-axis aligned crystalline indium gallium zinc oxide) material. The 8.3-inch 8K panel [boasts] a rather high pixel density of 1061 pixels per inch and has a refresh rate of 60 Hz. The larger 13.3-inch 8K panel features a pixel density of 662 PPI, but has a refresh rate of 120 Hz, which is particularly high for an OLED. The 8.3-inch 8Kp60 OLED was demonstrated last month at SEMICON Japan, whereas the 13.3-inch 8Kp120 OLED currently exists only in SEL's labs.
Related Stories
Samsung is investing an additional ₩13.1 trillion ($11 billion) in the R&D and production of quantum dot-enhanced organic light-emitting diode (QD-OLED) panels:
The QD-OLED technology promises to simplify (i.e. lower the cost of) production of OLED-based televisions and monitors, as well as enabling wider color gamuts, which is something expected from next-generation content. Contemporary WOLED panels from LG Display use a blue or white (yellow + blue) OLED emitter stack, and a WRGB color filter system on top with a variety of additional layers behind, between, and ahead of them. By contrast, a QD-OLED panel uses an OLED emitter stack (some believe, with two emitting stacks) with a quantum dot RGB color filter (also called quantum dot color converter, or QDCC) system on top.
Today's OLED panels feature 22 layers, whereas a QD-OLED panel may cut the number to 13, which means fewer deposition stages, lower material and production costs, and, perhaps, better yield. The QD-OLED technology is still considered to be rather challenging as Samsung has to solve light management issues. Meanwhile, according to Display Supply Chain, one square meter of an QD-OLED panel will cost around $26, whereas one square meter of a contemporary OLED panel costs approximately $95.
Related:
Claims of Industrial Espionage Plague OLED Development
Bright Blue PHOLEDs Almost Ready for TV
SEL Develops 8K OLED Displays for Tablets and Laptops
VESA Expands DisplayHDR Specification to Include OLED and Emissive Displays
15-inch, 4K OLED laptops are coming thanks to new displays from Samsung:
Larger OLED laptop screens are coming sooner than we anticipated. Samsung Displays announced that it has made a 15.6-inch 4K laptop display and will begin producing the panels next month. The company plans on providing them to other manufacturers to put into their premium notebooks.
[...] Samsung's 15.6-inch display has a brightness range of 0.0005 to 600 nits, and its spectrum of 34 million colors is double that of similar, 15-inch LCD panels. Samsung claims that its panel can produce blacks that are 200 times darker than those of LCD panels, and whites will be more than twice as bright. These attributes contribute to the HDR capabilities of the panel, and the company claims that the panel passes VESA's new DisplayHDR TrueBlack standard.
The cost? Don't ask.
Also at Engadget.
Related: SEL Develops 8K OLED Displays for Tablets and Laptops
VESA Expands DisplayHDR Specification to Include OLED and Emissive Displays
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:02AM (5 children)
Will this allow extremely tiny qr codes?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jasassin on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:20AM
No. Though it will allow super hi-rez dick pics.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:23AM (3 children)
8K is 33 megapixels. There are a few smartphones out there with 40 megapixel cameras, and many smartphones include multiple lenses with different focal lengths or an algorithm to zoom better. Screen resolution shouldn't matter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:44AM
So you expect me to scroll around the super hi-rez dickpicks while I'm beating it like it owes me money?
You insensitive clod!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:45AM
Try it, shrink down a qr code and attempt to scan it. Eventually the pixelation on the screen interferes.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday December 23 2018, @09:35AM
If you are comparing an 8K screen to a 33MP camera, the screen actually represents significantly more data. On camera sensors, the red, green, and blue dots are considered separate pixels. Whereas a group of red, green, and blue dots together make up one pixel on a monitor.
Of course, for a black and white QR code the chroma components don't necessarily matter. And since the pixels on the screen are much larger in reality than the ones on the sensor, any lens should be able bring it into focus at a close enough distance for the code to resolve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2018, @09:23AM (4 children)
If these go mainstream, looks like new VR gear is on the horizon. Any info about refresh rates supported by these tiny 8k screens?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 23 2018, @02:36PM (3 children)
Smaller one is 60 Hz, larger is 120 Hz. I assume that is to try to differentiate them and they could make a smaller 120 Hz panel.
The ultimate goal for VR is probably 16K over two panels, with a 220° horizontal, 150° vertical FOV [soylentnews.org] (possibly angled like StarVR, or using some kind of flat meta lens to make it more compact), at 240 Hz.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday December 23 2018, @05:31PM (2 children)
240Hz would be nice, but it's going to take a monster video card to actually drive a display that quickly. Especially a pair of 8k displays.
Of course, one of the other benefits of higher refresh rates is more graceful stepdown when you can't hit every frame - a 240Hz display can also be updated at 120, 80, 60, and 48 Hz, while a 120Hz display degrades straight to 60, and 40Hz. I wonder if something like freesync/gsync wouldn't be valuable for VR, to allow the refresh rate to degrade far more smoothly.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 23 2018, @08:56PM (1 child)
Whether or not they actually call it Free/G-Sync, there is plenty of effort being put into lowering latency and delivering smooth framerates:
https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/vr [amd.com]
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-crimson-relive-1741-smooths-out-vr-performance-on-rift-and-vive/ [pcgamer.com]
This should all be pretty transparent for the user, especially in the case of standalone headsets that pack a display and GPU.
I am predicting that even standalone headsets will get monstrous GPUs, due to advancements [soylentnews.org] that will forestall the end of Moore's law scaling and usher in 3D integrated circuits... with low power consumption. However, they might not even be needed. Foveated rendering [theverge.com] in particular will massively reduce the burden, and the human eye doesn't do much in ~4 ms [quora.com] (1 frame at 240 Hz). Foveated rendering is why Google and LG are already talking about using a 1,443 PPI panel [roadtovr.com] in a standalone headset. Other techniques can also be useful, for example, Seurat [google.com].
If latency needs to be cut further, we can again talk about 3D ICs. Simply integrating DRAM into the chip [monolithic3d.com] could produce massive speedups by nearly eliminating latency between the CPU and DRAM. We could see some further improvements if we can use "universal memory", meaning a post-NAND storage/memory replacement that is as fast as DRAM or faster, with indefinite endurance, and much higher density (terabytes instead of gigabytes).
If you can do something like put 100-1,000 teraflops of GPU performance in a standalone headset, along with CPU, TPU, NPU, etc. as needed, then it should also be possible to do real-time ray tracing. Nvidia's RTX 2000-series GPUs, as hyped as they were, are just 2D trash. Once we go 3D, there will be plenty of room to dedicate to ray tracing and other functions.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday December 24 2018, @01:49AM
That's some cool stuff, and a great way to compensate for rendering latency as much as possible, but it's completely independent from variable screen refresh technologies like freesync/gsync, which require hardware support for variable refresh rate. Essentially they're a way to eliminate the "tearing" of non-vsynced rendering by reversing how v-sync works. Instead of trying to sync the rendering engine to a fixed hardware framerate, it syncs the display updates to the rendering engine's infinitely variable output framerate.
And in fact one of the justifications for a high-framerate gaming monitor (at least among those for whom money *is* an object) has long been to allow a wider range of target framerates, since a monitor can essentially display at any integer divisor of its native rate. A 60Hz monitor can only display at 60 and 30Hz - 20Hz is solidly below the perceptual threshold of continuous motion, and even 30Hz is obviously sub-par to most people. A game driving a 120Hz monitor though can target 60, 40, or 30Hz, allowing for more options in the tradeoff between visual quality and speed. 240 would be even better, as it can target 120, 80, 60, 48, 40, 34, and 30. And of course it also helps with stuttering, which is the visual disruption created by shifting between those effective rates when the next frame isn't quite ready in time. The smaller the difference in frame duration between steps, the less obvious the stutter will be.
With a "reverse v-sync" display, that's eliminated as much as possible. If a rendering engine can only manage 57Hz this frame, and 54 the next, then the display refresh rate is just reduced for each frame to match.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2018, @01:48PM (1 child)
All these high resolution gee-whiz screens, and all I want is a screen for reasonably priced laptops that isn't shit. :-(
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 23 2018, @02:47PM
Are you referring to 1366×768 screens, use of TN, lack of OLED...? 💻
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]